https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2262402

Marián Konček mkoncek@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+

--- Comment #1 from Marián Konček mkoncek@redhat.com --- Package Review ==============

Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed

===== MUST items =====

Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 811 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Java: [x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build [x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on javapackages-tools (jpackage-utils) Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is pulled in by maven-local [x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: javapackages-tools (jpackage-utils) [x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)

Maven: [x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) even when building with ant [x]: POM files have correct Maven mapping [x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging [x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used [x]: Packages DO NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage- utils for %update_maven_depmap macro [x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun [x]: Packages use .mfiles file list instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

Java: [x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.) [x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Rpmlint ------- Checking: plexus-xml-3.0.0-1.fc40.noarch.rpm plexus-xml-javadoc-3.0.0-1.fc40.noarch.rpm plexus-xml-3.0.0-1.fc40.src.rpm ===================================== rpmlint session starts ==================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpgvp1at46')] checks: 31, packages: 3

plexus-xml-javadoc.noarch: W: package-with-huge-docs 99% ====== 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s =====

Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 2

plexus-xml-javadoc.noarch: W: package-with-huge-docs 99% 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 8 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s

Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/codehaus-plexus/plexus-xml/archive/plexus-xml-3.0.0.tar.g... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : cb4a3ca975f0efec1da279ad4cce533fd264eb93f0cce6e3eb1cb3ef783d767c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cb4a3ca975f0efec1da279ad4cce533fd264eb93f0cce6e3eb1cb3ef783d767c

Requires -------- plexus-xml (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (java-headless or java-21-headless or java-17-headless or java-11-headless or java-1.8.0-headless) javapackages-filesystem

plexus-xml-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): javapackages-filesystem

Provides -------- plexus-xml: mvn(org.codehaus.plexus:plexus-xml) mvn(org.codehaus.plexus:plexus-xml:pom:) plexus-xml

plexus-xml-javadoc: plexus-xml-javadoc

============= REVIEW PASSED =============

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2262402

Mikolaj Izdebski mizdebsk@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2262402

Mikolaj Izdebski mizdebsk@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2261923, 2240594, 2257231

Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2240594 [Bug 2240594] maven-resolver-2.0.0-alpha-1 is available https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2257231 [Bug 2257231] maven-compiler-plugin-3.12.1 is available https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2261923 [Bug 2261923] plexus-resources-1.3.0 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2262402

Mikolaj Izdebski mizdebsk@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |Triaged

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2262402

Mikolaj Izdebski mizdebsk@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2255774

Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2255774 [Bug 2255774] plexus-containers-2.2.0 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2262402

Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Last Closed| |2024-02-12 02:43:48

--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-503c616fdf (plexus-xml-3.0.0-1.fc39) has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.